Method for correcting layout errors

ABSTRACT

A method for correcting layout errors of a layout, for example layout errors of a layout of an electronic circuit, is disclosed. In order to be able to correct such layout errors with the least possible complexity, the layout is examined for the presence of layout errors with the aid of predetermined design rules, identical layout errors are combined in a respective error class, and all layout errors of an error class that are still present are automatically corrected without further checking in an identical manner as soon as the correction of a layout error of the respective error class that is used as an error representative has been performed.

This application claims priority to German Patent Application 10 2004037 297.7, which was filed Jul. 27, 2004 and is incorporated herein byreference.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The invention relates to a method for correcting layout errors of alayout, for example, layout errors in a layout of an electroniccomponent.

BACKGROUND

The published German patent application DE 102 24 417 A1, andcorresponding U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0025098, which are bothincorporated herein by reference, disclose a method for forming andclassifying error markers. In addition to the actual error region, thespatial “environment” of the layout errors is taken into account in thismethod.

U.S. Pat. No. 6,397,373, which is incorporated herein by reference, isconcerned with coping with problems in dealing with a high number of DR(Design Rule) violations within a complex layout. Like the publishedGerman patent application mentioned in the introduction, the methodrelates exclusively to the classification of errors, but not to theelimination of identified errors.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In one aspect, the invention specifies a method that makes it possibleto correct layout errors in a layout—for example in the layout of anelectronic circuit—with the least possible complexity.

Accordingly, it is provided according to a preferred embodiment of theinvention that, in order to eliminate layout errors of a layout, firstlythe layout is examined for the presence of layout errors with the aid ofpredetermined design rules. Afterward, identical layout errors arecombined in, in each case, one and the same error class. Subsequently,all layout errors of an error class that have not yet been corrected areautomatically corrected without further checking in an identical manneras soon as the correction of a layout error used as an errorrepresentative of the respective error class has been concluded.

One advantage of certain embodiments of the method according to theinvention can be seen in the fact that repeated manual performance ofidentical correction steps for the correction of identical layout errorsis superfluous. This is because, according to embodiments of theinvention, all identical layout errors—that is to say, all errors of thesame error class—are automatically eliminated as soon as one of theerrors of the respective error class is eliminated, whether under thecontrol of a data processing program or manually.

In other words, a correction of identical DR violations thus takes placethrough an automated transfer of the correction steps carried out on asingle entity (or on a single erroneous layout element) to all entities(or all erroneous layout elements) of the relevant error class. In thiscase, it is unimportant for embodiments of the method according to theinvention whether the triggering “start correction step” is carried outby means of an interactive method or fully automatic method. All that iscrucial is that after a single error correction has been carried out,identical errors are corrected fully automatically in an identicalmanner. This fully automatic “post correction” leads to a productivitygain in the design process as a result of manual layout correction stepsbeing saved.

The selection of the error representative is arbitrary. Moreover, theerror representative may be selected by a layout engineer or be selectedby machine—randomly or according to predetermined rules.

The automatic “post correction” of the remaining errors of an errorclass can be carried out particularly simply and thus advantageously bymeans of an electronic data processing system (DP system).

In order to identify the layout errors, the layout is tested for examplewith the aid of a physical verification program. Physical design errorscan be identified by means of such a program.

Embodiments of the method according to the invention can be used forexample in combination with all DRC-like (DRC: Design Rule Correction)programs as are used inter alia in the Mask Rule Check (MRC) step withinthe development flow of semiconductor components.

In order to enable a spatial assignment of the layout errors identifiedto the overall layout and thus to the layout hierarchy in a particularlysimple manner, it is regarded as advantageous if for each layout error,the hierarchical error location thereof is, in each case, stored asentity information.

If a layout library is used for the layout design, it is regarded asadvantageous if the layout library is corrected in a correspondingmanner if layout errors can be attributed to layout errors of the layoutlibrary. Future identical errors can thus be avoided.

Preferably, items of information about the layout error and/or about theenvironment of the layout error are extracted in a targeted manner.Afterward, the identity of the layout errors can then be ascertainedparticularly simply exclusively on the basis of the extracted items ofinformation. In this case, the items of information about the layouterror may, for example, also comprise geometrical patterns orgeometrical objects.

A pattern comparison is preferably carried out by means of eachgeometrical pattern or object being normalized prior to comparisonaccording to predetermined rules. With regard to the normalization andcomparison of patterns, reference should be made to the published Germanpatent application DE 102 24 417 A1, and corresponding U.S. PatentPublication No. 2004/0025098, mentioned in the introduction, whichthoroughly describes “normalization” for the purpose of patterncomparison.

Embodiments of the invention additionally relate to a data processingsystem for eliminating layout errors.

With regard to such a data processing system, embodiments specify asystem that enables the correction of layout errors in a layout of, forexample, an electronic circuit or an electronic component with the leastpossible complexity.

The data processing system is particularly preferably configured in sucha way that it interrogates, for each error class, an input at the userend as to whether a correction of the respective error class is to beeffected, in the case of a correction decision at the user end, logs thecorrection steps at the user end for the correction of the errorrepresentative with the formation of log data, and automaticallycorrects, on the basis of the log data, all layout errors of therespective error class that are still present in an identical manner, aswas carried out at the user end on the basis of the errorrepresentative.

With regard to the advantages of the data processing system according toembodiments of the invention, reference should be made to the aboveexplanations in connection with the method according to the invention,because the advantages of the method according to embodiments of theinvention essentially correspond to the advantages of the dataprocessing system according to the invention.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

For a more complete understanding of the present invention, and theadvantages thereof, reference is now made to the following descriptionstaken in conjunction with the accompanying drawing, in which:

FIGS. 1-3 show a layout on the basis of which the elimination ofso-called “notch” violations is elucidated by way of example; and

FIG. 4 shows a flow diagram, which visualizes an exemplary embodiment ofthe method according to the invention by way of example.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENTS

During layout creation in a full-custom or semi-custom flow, computerprograms are used for the physical verification of the layout in orderto test the current state of the layout for compliance with physicaldesign rules (Design Rule Check, abbreviated to “DRC”). In this case,modern physical verification programs (DRC programs) have recourse tothe layout hierarchy and indicate DR violations as “deep” as possible inthe layout hierarchy in order thus to simplify the subsequent errorcorrection by a layout engineer, for example.

It is precisely in repetitive (repeating) DRAM designs that very manyidentical DR violations originating in recurring layout structures areoften found. These identical DR violations are distinguished by the factthat the error marker itself and the layout relevant to the DR, in adefined environment of the error marker, are identical.

If identical DR violations originate in a subcell that is insertedrepeatedly into the same layout context, the violation can be correctedvery simply by eliminating the DR violation in the subcell once, allfurther DR violations thereby likewise being eliminated as well.However, the correction of identical DR violations is oftensubstantially more complicated. Periodically occurring identical DRviolations cannot always be assigned to a single cell since they occurin overlapped regions of two cells, for example, or since the input datarequired for the DRC are “scattered” widely over the hierarchy. In bothcases, many identical DR violations are only reported in a supercell.Whereas, in DRAM designs the occurrence of identical DR violations isobvious as a result of the periodic construction of the layout, that isnot always immediately the case for logic designs. However, in logicdesigns, too, identical DR violations may occur, e.g., as early asduring the library (layout database) creation. Although identical DRviolations may occur in mutually different cells of the chip, theynevertheless require identical correction steps.

An exemplary embodiment of the method according to the invention foreliminating errors is explained below in connection with FIGS. 1 to 4.This method involves carrying out an automated transfer of correctionsteps carried out on a single entity (or a single error element) to allentities (or error elements) of the same error class by means of aninteractive method. This leads to a productivity gain in the designprocess as a result of manual layout correction steps being saved.

FIG. 1 reveals a layout excerpt with an interconnect 10 with twoidentical “DR violations,” which violate the design rule “minimumdistance between structure edges” within the plane depicted. Both “DRviolations” in each case comprise a layout error 20 and 30 in the formof a cutout (notch) extending into interconnect 10. Although the cutouts20 and 30 are spatially rotated with respect to one another, they arenevertheless identical and can thus be classified in the same errorclass. Correspondingly, the two layout errors 20, 30 can also beeliminated in an identical manner.

An exemplary embodiment of a method for correcting the two layout errors20, 30 is explained below in connection with FIG. 4.

In a first correction step 100 (see FIG. 4), layout data that define thelayout to be corrected—formed by the interconnect 10 in FIG. 1—are fedinto a data processing system in the Cadence DFII format, in the GDSformat or in some other suitable format.

In a subsequent error detection step 110, the layout is examined for thepresence of layout errors by means of a conventional physicalverification program (e.g., the program “Dracula” from the companyCadence). In this case, by way of example, the layout errors 20, 30 inaccordance with FIG. 1 are detected, inter alia.

Afterward, in accordance with program steps 120 and 130, the errorsdiscovered are classified and subdivided into error classes. Onlyidentical layout errors are, in each case, assigned to each error class.In this case, the error classification may involve taking account ofitems of information solely about the error and/or in addition, items ofinformation about the environment of the errors. The environments 40 and50, for example, may be taken into account with regard to the two errors20 and 30.

In order to form the error classes, it is possible, for example, tocarry out a pattern comparison taking account of geometrical patternspresent in the error surroundings. The classification of the layouterrors may be carried out, e.g., in the manner as described thoroughlyin the incorporated published German patent application DE 102 24 417A1.

In the formation of the error classes, each error class is allocatedentity information items of the assigned layout errors. This means that,from each layout error (or “DRC error shape”) of an error class, the“hierarchical location” is available for further evaluation. In thiscase, the “hierarchical location” designates, for example, that cell orthose cells in which the layout error is reported and also theassociated coordinates thereof.

Consequently, after the conclusion of step 130, a multiplicity ofdifferent error classes each having identical errors are present.Referring to FIG. 1, a single error class having the two layout errors20 and 30 is thus formed since the two errors 20 and 30 are identical.

A subsequent program step 140 involves assessing each error class toestablish whether or not a correction is to be carried out. Thisassessment may be made manually by a layout engineer or else by machineor by DP according to fixedly predetermined assessment rules. For thisassessment, a representative error is, in each case, chosen beforehandfor each error class, arbitrarily or according to a predeterminedselection scheme (step 150). The decision as to whether a correction ofthe layout errors of the respective error class is to be effected istaken on the basis of the error representative.

In this way, all error classes or the error representatives thereof areassessed and either subjected to a correction (step 160) or leftunchanged (“Branch” 170); what remain unchanged are, for example, thoseerror classes that a layout engineer regards as irrelevant orunacceptable in terms of production engineering or are classified as“non critical” by a DP program according to predetermined rules.

The layout errors regarded as relevant or disturbing are subsequentlycorrected. For this purpose, firstly the error representative of theerror class is processed automatically or manually (step 160). As soonas the error representative of the error class has been corrected, alllayout errors of the respective error class are corrected automaticallyand without further inquiry—for example in computer-aided fashion—(step180). In this case, the corrections carried out on the errorrepresentative of the error class are transferred to all layout errors(or entities) of the error class, and the layout data are alteredcorrespondingly. The “layout database” used for creating the “layoutdata” may also be modified in this case if the layout errors relate tothe database elements of the “layout database.” The hierarchicallocation indications of the layout errors (or entities) are used for thecorrection of the “layout database.”

As a result, corrected layout data L_(out) are thus obtained from thelayout data L_(in) fed in on the input side as soon as the assessmentand correction loop 190 formed by program steps 140 to 180 has been runthrough completely (output step 200).

The correction steps carried out are preferably recorded orconcomitantly logged in a suitable form, e.g., in the form of additiveand subtractive “correction shapes”.

The performance of the correction steps 160 and 180 in accordance withFIG. 4 is illustrated in detail again in FIGS. 2 and 3 using the exampleof the layout errors 20, 30 in accordance with FIG. 1.

FIG. 2 reveals a correction element 60, which is inserted into thecutout 20 in the interconnect 10 in such a way that the cutout 20disappears. The other cutout 30 remains uncorrected as yet at this pointin time. The insertion of the correction element 60 into the cutout 20corresponds to correction step 160 in accordance with FIG. 4; the cutout20 as a layout error thus corresponds to the error representative, whichis first corrected.

After, for example, the manually effected correction of the layout error20, the layout error 30 is eliminated by DP fully automatically orwithout further inquiry and without further intervention at the user end(FIG. 3). This step corresponds to step 180 in accordance with FIG. 4.In the case of this automatic correction step 180, all correctionmeasures that were performed in connection with the error representative20 are repeated in an identical manner.

1. A method for eliminating layout errors of a layout, the methodcomprising: examining the layout for the presence of layout errors, theexamining performed with the aid of predetermined design rules;combining identical layout errors in a respective error class; andautomatically correcting all the layout errors of an error class thatare still present without further checking in an identical manner assoon as a correction step of a layout error of the respective errorclass that is used as an error representative has been performed.
 2. Themethod according to claim 1, further comprising logging correction stepsperformed on the basis of the error representative by means of anelectronic data processing system, wherein the layout errors of therespective error class that are still present are corrected by means ofthe electronic data processing system on the basis of log data on thecorrection steps.
 3. The method according to claim 1, wherein, for eachlayout error, a hierarchical error location is stored as entityinformation.
 4. The method according to claim 1, further comprisingcorrecting a layout library that was used to generate the layout in acorresponding manner if layout errors can be attributed to layout errorsof the layout library.
 5. The method according to claim 1, furthercomprising extracting items of information about the layout error and/orabout an environment of the layout error and ascertaining an identity oflayout errors on the basis of the extracted items of information.
 6. Themethod according to claim 5, wherein the extracted items of informationabout the layout errors have geometrical patterns or objects.
 7. Themethod according to claim 6, further comprising normalizing eachgeometrical pattern or object prior to the comparison according topredetermined rules.
 8. The method according to claim 1, furthercomprising testing the layout with the aid of a commercially availableDRC program.
 9. The method according to claim 1, wherein physical designerrors are processed as the layout errors.
 10. The method according toclaim 1, further comprising testing the layout with the aid of aphysical verification program.
 11. The method according to claim 1,wherein the layout comprises a layout of a semiconductor device.
 12. Themethod according to claim 11, wherein the layout includes a plurality ofrecurring layout structures.
 13. The method according to claim 12,wherein the semiconductor device comprises a dynamic random accessmemory device.
 14. A data processing system for eliminating layouterrors of a layout, the data processing system comprising amicroprocessor device, which is embodied in such a way that it examinesthe layout for the presence of the layout errors with the aid ofpredetermined design rules; combines identical layout errors in arespective error class; and automatically corrects all the layout errorsof an error class that are still present without further checking in anidentical manner as soon as a correction of a layout error of therespective error class that is used as an error representative has beenconcluded.
 15. The data processing system according to claim 14, furthercomprising an input device coupled to the microprocessor device, theinput device configured such that correction steps for the correction ofthe respective error representative can be input at a user end, whereinthe microprocessor device is embodied in such a way that itautomatically corrects all the layout errors of the respective errorclass without further checking in an identical manner as soon as thecorrection of the error representative of the respective error class hasbeen concluded at the user end.
 16. The data processing system accordingto claim 15, wherein the system is configured in such a way that it:interrogates, for each error class, an input at the user end as towhether a correction of the respective error class is to be effected; inthe case of a correction decision at the user end, logs the correctionsteps at the user end for the correction of the error representativewith a formation of log data; and automatically corrects, on the basisof the log data, all the layout errors of the respective error classthat are still present in an identical manner, as was carried out at theuser end on the basis of the error representative.
 17. The dataprocessing system according to claim 14, further comprising anelectronic data processing system coupled to the microprocessor andconfigured to log correction steps carried out on the basis of the errorrepresentative.
 18. The data processing system according to claim 17,wherein the layout errors of the respective error class that are stillpresent are corrected by means of the electronic data processing systemon the basis of log data on the correction steps.
 19. The dataprocessing system according to claim 14, wherein the data processingsystem is configured to correct a layout library that was used togenerate the layout in a corresponding manner if layout errors can beattributed to layout errors of the layout library.
 20. The dataprocessing system according to claim 14, wherein the data processingsystem is configured to extract items of information about the layouterror and/or about an environment of the layout error and ascertain anidentity of layout errors on the basis of the extracted items ofinformation.
 21. The data processing system according to claim 20,wherein the items of information about the layout errors havegeometrical patterns or objects.
 22. The data processing systemaccording to claim 21, wherein the data processing system is furtherconfigured to normalize each geometrical pattern or object prior to acomparison according to predetermined rules.
 23. The data processingsystem according to claim 14, wherein the microprocessor runs a physicalverification program to test the layout.